Quantcast

Parents allege Owlet Smart Socks issue false alarms or do not detect abnormal oxygen levels

By Jenie Mallari-Torres | Feb 13, 2019

LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) – Two California mothers allege a baby monitor either recorded false alarms or failed to alert them of their baby's low oxygen level.

Amanda Ruiz and Marisela Arreola filed a complaint individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals on Jan. 29 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Owlet Baby Care Inc. alleging violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and other counts.

According to the complaint, the defendant manufactures the Owlet Smart Sock or Owlet Smart Sock 2 baby monitors.

"The Smart Sock gives false alarms and causes parents to rush their babies to the hospital, believing them to be grievously ill. Owlet has had knowledge about this defect and has referred to it as 'false alarm fatigue.' Conversely, the Smart Sock also regularly fails to detect abnormal oxygen levels and heart rates--the exact purpose for which it was designed and advertised. Owlet failed to disclose this material information to consumers prior to sale and actively concealed its knowledge of these defects to the purchasing public," the suit states.

Ruiz alleges she purchased the Smart Sock 2 in November 2018 for her child and that it gave two false alarms. She alleges she has since stopping using the device.

Arreola alleges she purchased the Smart Sock 1 for her daughter and that it failed three times to alert her that her daughter's oxygen levels were low. She alleges she stopped using the device.

The plaintiffs hold Owlet Baby Care Inc. responsible because the defendant allegedly failed to disclose and concealed the true and actual nature, quality and characteristics of the products and represented that the products has characteristics and benefits they do not have.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against defendant; certify class action; declaratory relief; compensatory, exemplary, and statutory damages; interest; attorneys’ fees; and costs, and other relief as may be appropriate. They are represented by Mark Z. Ozzello, Tarek H. Zohdy, Cody R. Padgett and Trisha K. Monesi of Capstone Law APC in Los Angeles.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case number 19-cv-00182

Want to get notified whenever we write about U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ?

Sign-up Next time we write about U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Organizations in this Story

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

More News

The Record Network